Every published draft of the Structures specification has described Structures
as specifying (part of) the XML Schema definition language.  And every
draft has used XML Schema (with or without a 1.0 or 1.1) as the short
name of the language. 

The short names "XML Schema" and "XML Schema language" have predictably
led to confusion.  In writing, one can say that "the XML Schema language
is one of many XML schema languages", and even a moderately careful 
reader may follow the train of thought.  But try to say it aloud, and
you will be forcibly struck by the futility of relying on the difference 
between uppercase S and lowercase S to carry the difference between 
a proper noun (the name of our langauge) and a common noun phrase 
(which denotes an infinite class of languages including ours).  We 
would do ourselves, and everyone who writes, speaks, reads, or listens 
to people speaking about schema languages a favor if we made it easier 
to distinguish references to our language from references to schema 
languages in or for XML in general.

The name "XML Schema" has also given the Schema WG, and the W3C
in general, a reputation for arrogance; since the name seems to
convey the idea that we believe there is only one XML schema language worth
talking about, namely "the" XML Schema language.  A number of people
otherwise well disposed towards W3C (although not particularly well
disposed to the XML Schema WG, being no particular fans of our work) 
have publicly and privately expressed irritation at the name "XML Schema" 
and many refuse to use it; the alternative soubriquets they have bestowed
on the language vary, but "the W3C XML Schema [or schema] language",
abbreviated WXS, is not uncommon.

I think we would do well to listen to the complaint, since it seems
well founded. 

So I propose that we change our usage to give our language a
name which is not quite so readily confused with generic references
to XML schema languages, and adopt the new name in 1.1.

One possible new name:  call the language not the "XML Schema
description language" but the "XML Schema Description Language",
XSD or XSDL for short; change the main title line of the
spec from "XML Schema 1.1: Structures" to "XML Schema Definition
Language (XSD) 1.1:  Structures"; change references to "XML
Schema" in the text to "XSD" or to some other phrase, as
appropriate.

Other names and acronyms or initialisms are also possible; it
is less important to me that we use a particular name or
short form than that we avoid using what sounds like a common
noun phrase as a name or short form.  (The acid reception in
some quarters to the CSS spec called simply "Selectors" is
a good example of the reaction to our spec which I would like
to begin to change.  It could be elevated to a general rule:
if you do not wish to come across as hopelessly arrogant, 
avoid capitalizing a common noun phrase describing your
spec and giving your language that name.)  

One alternative to "XML Schema Definition Language" mentioned
when we discussed this topic in New Orleans was "XML Schema
Language"; unfortunately, I think I heard the other day that the 
initialism "XSL" is spoken for.

Note that the issue I'm raising applies equally to Structures
and Datatypes, but I don't expect separate discussion to be
needed so I am not opening a separate issue for tracking this 
question in the context of Datatypes.